There would definitely still be people that want the money/authority that comes from a CEO position, they would just be held to a standard. A company is not an organization or the processes that it follows, it is the people that create and carry out those processes. If you separate the responsibility for the company from the people that make up that company you allow mistakes without real consequences for those that had a part in causing it.
Based on what I have heard the last day, the CEO of Crowdstrike created a culture of cutting corners in the organization he is responsible for that led to a reduced focus on QA testing which in turn let this bug slip into the production machines of a significant number of other companies and organizations counting on that not happening. If the responsibility for that mistake lies with something as nebulous as “the company” then the organization may close, but the people that were responsible would be separated from the consequences of their negligence and free to move on to any other company having learned they can do the same things without being harmed personally. That sounds less than ideal.
I think the CEO should have some consequences. Maybe not jail time (although maybe if there were people in medical situations that died because the machines being used to keep them alive were bricked) but a real fine that impacts him personally may prompt a greater drive to organize the company to avoid the issue in the future, or prevent it at future companies.
I think any discipline should come from the board. It isn’t the governments place to dictate the company internals. They can structure how they like as long as they follow the laws. The liability falls onto the company and if the board gets pissed they can fire the CEO
There would definitely still be people that want the money/authority that comes from a CEO position, they would just be held to a standard. A company is not an organization or the processes that it follows, it is the people that create and carry out those processes. If you separate the responsibility for the company from the people that make up that company you allow mistakes without real consequences for those that had a part in causing it.
Based on what I have heard the last day, the CEO of Crowdstrike created a culture of cutting corners in the organization he is responsible for that led to a reduced focus on QA testing which in turn let this bug slip into the production machines of a significant number of other companies and organizations counting on that not happening. If the responsibility for that mistake lies with something as nebulous as “the company” then the organization may close, but the people that were responsible would be separated from the consequences of their negligence and free to move on to any other company having learned they can do the same things without being harmed personally. That sounds less than ideal.
I think the CEO should have some consequences. Maybe not jail time (although maybe if there were people in medical situations that died because the machines being used to keep them alive were bricked) but a real fine that impacts him personally may prompt a greater drive to organize the company to avoid the issue in the future, or prevent it at future companies.
I think any discipline should come from the board. It isn’t the governments place to dictate the company internals. They can structure how they like as long as they follow the laws. The liability falls onto the company and if the board gets pissed they can fire the CEO
‘We have investigated ourselves and have found no wrong doing.’